In Re: Larue Haigler, III

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 07, 2023
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
IN RE: LARUE HAIGLER, III
No. 2023-B-00446
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Office of Disciplinary Counsel - Applicant Other; Notice of Discipline in
Another Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule XIX, Section 21 and Motion to Initiate
Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 07, 2023
Reciprocal disability inactive status imposed. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/07/2023 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NO. 2
023-B-0446
I
N RE: LaRUE HAIGLER, III
AT
TORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING
P
ER CURIAM
P
ursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
(“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal disability inactive
status against respondent, LaRue Haigler, III,1 an attorney licensed to practice law
in the States of Louisiana and Alabama, based upon his transfer to disability inactive
status by the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar.
UNDE
RLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar issued
an order transferring respondent to disability inactive status. The order provides that
“pursuant to Rule 27(c), Ala. R. Disc. P.,2 LaRue Haigler, III, is hereby transferred
to Disability Inactive Status, effective immediately.”
1 On November 7, 2022, the ODC filed formal charges against respondent in disciplinary board
docket number 22-DB-058, and those charges remain pending.
2 Rule 27 of the Alabama Rules of Disciplinary Procedure provides, in pertinent part:
(
c) Incapacity claimed by Respondent Lawyer. If, during the course
of a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent contends that he or she
is suffering from a disability by reason of mental or physical
infirmity, illness, or addiction to drugs or intoxicants, which makes
it impossible for the respondent to defend himself or herself, the
Disciplinary Board shall enter an order transferring the respondent
to disability inactive status until a determination is made of the
respondent’s ability to adequately defend himself or he rself. The
Disciplinary Board shall appoint a lawyer to represent the
respondent if he or she is without adequate representation, and may
take or direct such action to be taken as it deems necessary or proper
to determine whether the respondent is able to adequately defend
himself or herself, including the examination of the respondent by
such qualified medical experts as the Disciplinary Board shall
designate. If the Disciplinary Board determines that the respondent
06/07/23

2

After receiving notice of the order transferring respondent to disability
inactive status in Alabama, the ODC filed a petition to initiate reciprocal disability
inactive status proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme C ourt Rule XIX, §
21. A certified copy of the decision and order of the Disciplinary Board of the
Alabama State Bar was attached to the motion. On March 29, 2023, this court
rendered an order giving respondent and the ODC thirty days to demonstrate why
transferring him to disability inactive status in this state would be unwarranted.
Respondent failed to file any response in this court.
In response to the court’s order, the ODC indicated that the documentation
submitted to the Discip linary Board of the Alabama State Bar in support of the
petition to transfer to disability inactive status indicates that respondent is unable to
assist in his defense of pending disciplinary proceedings due to incapacity as a result
of substance use and other disorders for which he is currently undergoing treatment.

DISCUSSION
The standard for transferring an attorney to disability inactive status on a
reciprocal basis is set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides,
in pertinent part:
Upon the expiration of thirty days from service of the
notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph B, this court
shall impose … disability inactive status unless
disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates, or this
court finds that it clearly appears upon the face of the
record from which the discipline is predicated, that:

… (5) the reason for the original transfer to disability
inactive status no longer exists.

If this court determines that any of those elements exists,
this court shall enter such other order as it deems
appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different

is able to adequately defend himself o r herself, it shall take such
action as it deems proper and advisable including a direction for the
resumption of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

3

discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the
imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

On February 28, 202 3, the Disciplinary Board of the Alabama State Bar
transferred respondent to disability inactive status. The imposition of reciprocal
disability inactive status in Louisiana is appropriate, and there is no suggestion
otherwise upon the face of the record. Accordingly, we will transfer respondent to
disability inactive status.

DECREE
Considering the Petition for Reciprocal Disability Inactive Status filed by the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that
respondent, LaRue Haigler, III, Louisiana Bar Roll number 33168, be and he hereby
is transferred to disability inactive status.